Persisting on two left feet

Five and a half years ago, a visit to nine Karnataka farmers
who were trialing Bt cotton showed regulatory breakdown.
Six years on, despite fresh criticism by NGOs, scientists and the media,
India's regulatory practice with transgenic crops appears to have
offered a repeat performance of its 2000 conduct, says
Keya Acharya.

Five and a half years ago, in December 2000, I visited the fields of nine
cotton farmers in Bellary, Davangere, Koppal, Raichur and Shimoga districts of
Karnataka selected by Monsanto-Mahyco in August-September 2000 to conduct Bt
cotton trials. The seeds were Mahyco's hybrids incorporated with Monsanto's Bt
gene Bollgard.

Original issues from 6 years ago


Inadequate maintenance of buffer plots;

No knowledge of the genotype (variety of seed) received;

Inordinate reliance on fertilizer/pesticide agents' directives by all farmers, not just Bt ones

No confidence in government agricultural extension advice, if any was extended.
 Poor execution of integrated pest management (IPM) methods in the field, in 'non Bt' areas, pointed to inadequate dissemination by the agricultural extension system.

Farmers stated that they would try Bt cotton, regardless of opposition
by political parties and organisations like the KRRS or others; that 2-3 crop seasons would tell
them how the seed would fare.

Far better results from indigenous hybrid cotton varieties (i.e. those without one or more foreign
parentage).

I had found no independent monitoring of the plots, in this case by the
branches of the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS) as stipulated by the
state government. Eight of the nine farmers said nobody from the Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee (GEAC) had come
to inspect their fields. GEAC is the central regulator under
the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). The ninth farmer, Ningappa from Koppal, said a group
came with the agriculture department official and had a meeting with him once
during the season. And a 'Balwinder Singh' signed himself in Ningappa's book as
coming from Punjab and Hyderabad.

Not one of them said any government official
took soil samples, or seeds or any material for testing. On querying about
GEAC's lack of presence in the fields, the then Department of Biotechnology (DBT)
Secretary Manju Sharma's
reply was that GEAC was responsible along with Mahyco for ground monitoring, the
implications of which sounded like a government-Mahyco collaboration.

Another fundamental flaw was of late sowing due to delayed distribution of seed
by the company, which resulted in the crop having missed the peak bollworm
infestation period.

Field violations and the
government's lack of response to them were subsequently
reported in 2002, by the Stockholm Environment
Institute and the Centre for Budget & Policy Studies-Bangalore. They study looked at Mahyco field
trials, interviewing Bt cotton farmers who had participated in the 2001 Mahyco
trials together with scientists from the UAS.
Their report highlighted continuing
problems, including late supply of seeds by Mahyco, delaying the sowing season yet
again. "It is
curious that the delay should recur", said the report, considering the GEAC
ordered this retrial due to NGO objections that the pre-2001 trials missed the
peak bollworm season because of late sowing.

Also, farmers were permitted to harvest and
sell the Bt trial crop and use its residues for various purposes, in apparent
violation of GEAC conditions to Mahyco, raising serious questions of whether the
GEAC was aware of how the trials were being conducted. In addition, DBT allowed Mahyco to
set up, and identify, members for a monitoring committee, raising questions
about DBT's credibility and competency in setting up independent regulatory
systems ~ monitoring committee's checking of field trials thereafter desultory
and not rigorous.

But why rehash old stories now? Six years on, despite criticism
by NGOs, concerned scientists and media reports on inadequate monitoring,
India's regulatory practice appears dismayingly to have offered a repeat
performance of its 2000 conduct.

"The story is almost a repetition of the field trials [earlier ones] The same
kind of secrecy, the same kind of lax monitoring . and the same kind of
violations" says a field survey report compiled by a cross-country group of 20
people's organizations and NGOs that clubbed together to form the Monitoring and
Evaluation Committee (MEC).

"Had we adopted a pro-small farmer biotechnology strategy, we would by now have had Bt-cotton
varieties whose seeds farmers could keep and replant, unlike in the case of the
hybrids marketed by private companies."

Concerns over biosafety issues have even come from a pro-transgenic votary,
Dr M S Swaminathan, well-known past advocate of the fertilizers, pesticides and
hybrid crops of the 1970s that did, despite its failures today, make India
self-sufficient in food. Swaminathan now looks at transgenic crops for higher
nutritional yield from less land areas, less usage of water and chemicals, and
causing less environmental stress.

"It is essential that an autonomous biotechnology regulatory authority, with a
high degree of political, public, professional and media credibility be set up
urgently," Swaminathan said in 2005, in reply to my query on the poor regulating
mechanism in force in the country.

Swaminathan now rues what looks like a mess in the field. "Had we adopted a
pro-small farmer biotechnology strategy, we would by now have had Bt-cotton
varieties whose seeds farmers could keep and replant, unlike in the case of the
hybrids marketed by private companies" wrote Swaminathan in The Hindu on 24 May
2006.

The central government's response has been to doggedly carry on, siding with the
corporate seed industry that the protests are from self-serving NGOs with vested
interests. The single biggest factor in the government-industry combine's favour
is the ever-increasing acreage of Bt cotton, which it claims points to
farmer-acceptance. But given the mixed results of Bt cotton so far, the
increase could well be due to farmers wanting to experiment in the hope of
bigger yields and better profits that Bt cotton has been hyped for.

Furthermore, the government's inability to control the untrammelled increase of
fake, spurious Bt cotton seeds is worrying. Such seeds, known to have produced
dismal results in 2004-05 season are common in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan.
Farmers in Karnataka this year say they have learnt from the disaster that
others suffered earlier from such seeds and now buy only from authorized
sources.

The biotechnology magazine Biospectrum said in April this year that the
Union Agriculture Ministry has advised state governments to set up
check-squads and strictly enforce the Seeds Control Order 1983. The
article also said that officials plead helplessness because loose seeds
do not warrant any regulatory action. And yet, the
Environment Protection Act 1986 already has clear guidelines barring the sale of
genetically modified micro-organisms without mandatory approval of the GEAC, with
penalty provisions. Section 15 of the EPA imposes imprisonment extending to five years
for contravention or with a fine extending to Rs.100,000, or both. If contravention or
failure continues an additional fine could, which may extend to Rs.5000 per day of failure.

Also, the new Seed Bill, currently in
Parliament for debate, proposes to address this situation by stipulating
that farmers can save their own seeds if they wish, but cannot sell
them without government certification and branding.

The latest government move to keep up with the rapidly changing agricultural
scenario in India is the Food Standards & Safety Bill 2005, slated in Parliament
for passing. The Bill proposes to create a separate Food Safety and Standards Authority
for regulation of GM foods, while the MOEF will continue with regulation of GM
crops.

Still, the GEAC's regulation continues to remain suspect, given the ground realities
on the fields. Even as farmers in Karnataka are increasingly turning to Bt cotton in 2006,
there is no separate streamlined procedure for cultivation, transportation and
sale of cotton, leading to contamination worries. It is the process from cultivation to
to sale that gives rise to contamination risks. The procedure of growing, harvesting (especially),
baling and transporting leaves wide scope for Bt and non Bt to mix.

Contamination is currently a worldwide problem. With the exception of the EU which
has strict procedures for separation of GM and non GM, similar situations exist
elsewhere. What's more, Indian farm sizes are so small and the entire system of
cultivation, transportation and sale so decentralised that the risk here is higher.
A strict system of separation from inception right down to the market yard is an
expensive proposition that no country, the only exception being the EU, follows.

Even if a separation mechanism is chalked out in the near future, its implementation
remains as suspect as GEAC's efficacy in regulatory monitoring. Contamination,
therefore, is bound to happen. The question is, what do we do?

Keya Acharya26 June 2006

Keya Acharya is a Bangalore based development and investigative journalist. This article is second
in a series of three investigative reports.